Redstate

Pinochet was certainly a dictator. That is surely a matter of record rather than debate?

Thomas's judgement that Pinochet was better than the alternative is also, almost certainly correct. With Pinochet, and Park, you can at least form a ledger of the good and the bad that they achieved. With Castro, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and other socialist dictators there is nothing, or close to nothing, on the positive side to form the basis of any sort of analysis.

On the whole, I cannot say I mourn him, even if his contribution was, on balance, good. Torture (and I mean real torture, not shouting at people) is a pretty fundamental bar to joining the good guys.

But my real objection, AE, to your original post is grammar. That should be 'fewer' not 'less'.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

So mr. pinochet stepped down, therefore he wasn't a dictator?
please, this is simply absurd.

First, as to the economy tanking linked to Allende. The Coup occured on September 11, 1973...7 years earlier.

Second, pinochet did not give up control as the head of the military until 1998! that is the year the Supreme Court stripped his immunity that he declared for himself when he "stepped down".

Third, Many more died and where oppressed under Pinochet than Marcos in the Philippines, and he "stepped down", yet by any measure Marcos was a Dictator. Pinochet's regime was dictatorial and brutal. By any measure he was a Dictator, to say otherwise is an insult to his victims and to history.

I do agree that it is a loss for all of us, but a loss in the sense that he escaped justice, and that is the real tragedy

When commenting on a blog written in English, make sure that your understanding of English exceeds what was required to pass your boards.

So mr. pinochet stepped down, therefore he wasn't a dictator?

Point to where I said that.

First, as to the economy tanking linked to Allende. The Coup occured on September 11, 1973...7 years earlier.

Yes, it did. Read what I said.

Second, pinochet did not give up control as the head of the military until 1998! that is the year the Supreme Court stripped his immunity that he declared for himself when he "stepped down".

"Head of the Military" following the late 1980s did not equal "Head of State." I know you guys had a jones on to get Pinochet (he did, after all, get one nasty socialist-communist to commit suicide, and executed a good number of others), but really, try to keep the facts straight. (Similarly, "Senator for Life" did not equal "Head of State.")

Third, Many more died and where oppressed under Pinochet than Marcos in the Philippines, and he "stepped down", yet by any measure Marcos was a Dictator. Pinochet's regime was dictatorial and brutal. By any measure he was a Dictator, to say otherwise is an insult to his victims and to history.

To continue in this vein is an insult to the English language.

(We don't capitalize non-proper nouns in English, except at the beginning of sentences, when speaking metonymically, when referring to a specific object with special importance, and in a handful of other cases. Learn English in Germany, did we?)

I do agree that it is a loss for all of us, but a loss in the sense that he escaped justice, and that is the real tragedy

The real tragedy is that the judge who indicted him in Spain wasn't shot on the spot, for discouraging dictators from doing what Pinochet did, which is to say, relinquishing power.

I'd say that the lot of you need to grow up, but really, I'll just say something that'll mean a lot more to you in thirty years: Salaam.

Think of me when you turn to Mecca to pray.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

That I want to discuss on.

[i]Second, pinochet did not give up control as the head of the military until 1998! that is the year the Supreme Court stripped his immunity that he declared for himself when he "stepped down".[/i]

Is it possible that Pinochet was more than willing to step down from his position of power IF he knew he could retain the immunity from being prosecuted for his crimes against humanity? Granted, I am not familiar with the history of Chile and Pinochet's dictatorship, but does he really deserve our applause for stepping down?

In any case, I doubt Pinochet will be missed dearly, it's not like he contributed a lot to the 'betterment' of humankind. He was a brutal dictator and had very little respect for the rule of law and due process. Now, it's time for him to face God for what he did to his fellow countrymen, and he will be judged according to his deeds. If he did not accept Jesus Christ as his personal Savior, then he will be cast into the Lake of Fire, where he will suffer greatly.

A loss, you say? Humm, maybe you're right, considering how much we need more friends in Latin America due to the rise of leftist dictators like Hugo Chavez. Perhaps Pinochet was a necessary evil, after all, it cannot be denied him that he did succeed in stopping the rise of communism, but should we give the honor to him? I think not.

But of course, you're free to believe in whatever you want, but for me, I'll stick with my belief that Pinochet should rot in Hell for what he did to so many victims. In my book, there is no such thing as a 'good' dictator.

Dan

Is it possible that Pinochet was more than willing to step down from his position of power IF he knew he could retain the immunity from being prosecuted for his crimes against humanity? Granted, I am not familiar with the history of Chile and Pinochet's dictatorship, but does he really deserve our applause for stepping down?

(1) Duh?
(2) Yes.

In any case, I doubt Pinochet will be missed dearly, it's not like he contributed a lot to the 'betterment' of humankind.

I agree with the first part of this sentence. I suppose we'll have to disagree about the men who beat Communism.

He was a brutal dictator and had very little respect for the rule of law and due process.

You should probably get your terms right before trying out little snippets like this.

If he did not accept Jesus Christ as his personal Savior, then he will be cast into the Lake of Fire, where he will suffer greatly.

He was Catholic. That's one better.

Perhaps Pinochet was a necessary evil, after all, it cannot be denied him that he did succeed in stopping the rise of communism, but should we give the honor to him? I think not.

We're gonna have to disagree on this one.

In my book, there is no such thing as a 'good' dictator.

Never ever?

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

He was Catholic. That's one better.

Wrong. Not to get too deep on religious issues, Catholicism believes in order to get into Heaven, one must follow sacrements and based on good works. There is nowhere in the Bible which teaches like that. In Ephesians 2:8-10, it's quite clear that good works can't help you into Heaven. In 1 Peter 1:18-21, keeping the traditions of your fathers (i.e. being a Catholic because your parents were raised Catholics) also cannot help you to enter Heaven.

Finally, here is a couple of special verses that Jesus Christ Himself said which should show anyone who thinks killing somebody in the name of God and attempting to establish a spiritual kingdom by the use of temporal powers is wrong.

John 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
John 16:3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

And in regards to using the temporal powers...

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Aye, Pinochet probably was a 'good' Catholic, but it doesn't mean he can get into Heaven based on his merits. Moreover, one must consider the fruit of his spirit, was it good?

Matt. 7:18-23 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

So, tell me, was Pinochet a 'good' born-again Christian? I think not.

As an evangelical penticostal, I take exception to your comments and posting here. Not that I necessarily disagree, but they have no place at RedState.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Before spouting off about it where practicing Catholics can see/hear. Your post started off insulting and got worse as you continued.

Catholicism believes in order to get into Heaven, one must follow sacrements and based on good works.

We (Catholics) believe no such thing. You get to heaven Purely by the Grace of God. By being saved by Christ, so to speak. And by no other path. Which is why we don't make such a fuss about good works. We want people to be good Christians and Heavily encourage Good Works, but do not require them in any way.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

Two: Before you ever take your half-baked theology onto this board again, learn about what Catholicism actually teaches, instead of regurgitating Jack Chick.

Three: You seriously don't want to start this war.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I'm not interested in starting any war on Redstate, as somebody else did point out that this is a political blog. I'm enough of a man to admit that I shouldn't have tossed in my religious beliefs, it was wrong of me, and I take full responsibility for that one, it's all on my head.

Undoubtedly. Pinochet kept his nation from falling apart. At great cost, unfortunately, but he did what was neccessary at the time to eliminate the forces who wanted to bring about a Stalinist dictatorship and then he stepped down and let the country go about its business.

If you were to look more closely at what he was faced with after taking control, you would be forced to admit that anyone in that position would either need to take rather extreme action or die horribly with all his supporters and a great many innocents.

Was he a Good man? No, certainly not. Was he what Chile needed at the time? Most definitely.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

Bureaucrats in the United States also capitalize non-proper nouns. Of course, the Germans invented bureaucracy.

thomas, or shall i say tomas...

"Point to where I said that."

1. "gotta disagree with your characterization there."
2. this was in response to "Another Dictator Dies"
3. You give him credit for "stepping down"
4. You implicitly say that this absolves him from his mistakes.
5. He's loss is a loss for all of us
6. reasonable conclusiong, not a dictator...

you might have not set it, but the tone of your post certainly suggested it....

capitalization was used for effect on the reader! besides it's just an internet post.

Did you really have to insult me by saying that somehow my point a view is a tacit support of Islamic Terrorism? That, Tomas, is what is known in the English language as a "straw man" argument.

Disagree, that is not a problem, but leave the ad hominem attacks where they belong.

You would not be so sanguine about Pinchoet if he had shocked your nuts! Yet, somehow that justifies the growth of the economy.

"Point to where I said that."

1. "gotta disagree with your characterization there."
2. this was in response to "Another Dictator Dies"
3. You give him credit for "stepping down"
4. You implicitly say that this absolves him from his mistakes.
5. He's loss is a loss for all of us
6. reasonable conclusiong, not a dictator...

you might have not set it, but the tone of your post certainly suggested it....

The tone of my piece -- given that I clearly stated that he was a dictator -- was that he was one of the less-bad breed, and that we perhaps need to encourage dictators to be more like him. The clear words of my post made clear that he was a dictator. (In English, as in late-Classical Latin, dictator carries only a mildly negative connotation. The word you're perhaps looking for is tyrant, which, wholly divorced from its Greek connotation, has strongly negative overtones in English. I said nothing one way or another about Pinochet being a tyrant.)

Did you really have to insult me by saying that somehow my point a view is a tacit support of Islamic Terrorism?

Actually, that wasn't the insult. The insult was that you and yours will be praying toward Mecca five times daily in about thirty years because you guys gave up the ghost a few decades back. (In fairness to you, this is a common argument or jest on blogs in America, to-wit: That you guys don't have kids, don't practice any appreciable religious beliefs with any sincerity, and decided to import a bunch of Muslims who do both, and could be inspired to reverse the Fall of Andalusia, well, Google "Eurabia" and see what you get.) It has nothing to do with the silliness you're expounding here.

That, Tomas, is what is known in the English language as a "straw man" argument.

Actually, that is what is known in Latin as an ad hominem argument. Try to keep up.

You would not be so sanguine about Pinchoet if he had shocked your nuts! Yet, somehow that justifies the growth of the economy.

Statistically, he shocked very few nuts. Indeed, he personally shocked none, so far as I know; he merely ordered mass shockings. That the nuts he ordered shocked belonged to Communists, socialists, and stupid Europeans who were intent on being a Soviet Fifth Column in all but name makes this entirely bearable for me.

And what you actually mean is, Somehow, the economy's growth justifies that. Actually, it does not. But indicative as that growth is of other good things, those good things might justify the shocking.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Statistically, he shocked very few nuts. Indeed, he personally shocked none, so far as I know; he merely ordered mass shockings. That the nuts he ordered shocked belonged to Communists, socialists, and stupid Europeans who were intent on being a Soviet Fifth Column in all but name makes this entirely bearable for me.

Good thing that all the people who deserve to be tortured have that distinctive mark on their head so that Pinochet's torture squads knew whom to target. Otherwise, there might have been some completely innocent people among the tens of thousands of people who were broken, physically or spiritually, by his regime. Or, worse, among the thousands that his regime killed.

Then again, I suppose that if you're going to make an omelet, you need to break some eggs, right?

I wouldn't have seen this except I happened to be on the page at the time.

Good thing that all the people who deserve to be tortured have that distinctive mark on their head so that Pinochet's torture squads knew whom to target.

No. It's on their right hand. Duh.

Obviously not all the people who deserved to be tortured were tortured. Let's not give the man or his subordinates too many points for efficiency, no matter how effective Operation Condor might have been.

Otherwise, there might have been some completely innocent people among the tens of thousands of people who were broken, physically or spiritually, by his regime.

Did you know that we abandoned the White Army during the Soviet revolutions? Or that we knew about those mass graves in Poland while they were being filled? I'm just wondering.

Or, worse, among the thousands that his regime killed.

Google "Dresden" and "Tokyo fire raids," then get back to me.

Then again, I suppose that if you're going to make an omelet, you need to break some eggs, right?

Properly, you'd need to break at least two. When dealing with communists, unfortunately, a large number of eggs get broken to make sure they don't burn down the henhouse.

Your title is ironic, copain.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

did the net benefits exceed the net costs, and was it reasonable for him to think they would?

Thats the most ridiculous criteria I've ever heard of! I mean, we could have exterminated every single person in German to ensure the end of Nazism but that would have been horrible! You make it sound as if Pinochet had a list of known communists and killed them in a systematic way. Many of his victims were NOT known communists but merely liberals. I mean, Hillary Clinton's economic policies would be horrible for this country but that doesn't mean she should die!

Allende may very well have turned completely communist and ended free elections, but he was democratically elected. You can't say it's okay to have a democracy overthrown because of a future crime that MIGHT have been committed. That's nonsense.

Pinochet should NOT be celebrated as a hero. He was a murderer. The fact that he saved Chile's economy not withstanding, he was a dictator and a killer. The world is better off without him.

International Affairs is just Political Science with an accent.

According to your logic, it would have been immoral for a German general to have overthrown Hitler in the 1930s, and then taken action against leading National Socialists. And Hitler of course was freely elected.

The "merely liberals" claim holds no water... communist sympathizers have been spouting that one for decades, with reference to a whole range of people and groups. Millions of Chileans are presumably somewhat liberal, given their current voting behavior, but a few thousand died under Pinochet, over a long period of time.

Also, my argument has nothing to do with moral relativism at all. That you even mention it makes me wonder how much you've even thought about challenging political and moral questions.

I don't know if you don't know what moral relativism is or what but your arguments are ridiculous. Yes a few thousand did die...how is that proof that he only targeted communists? Allende had broken no laws, you can't just claim, he harbors ill intent and then kill him. If Allende had outlawed elections then yes I would say pinochet had the moral authority to overthrow the government. But not for just exhibiting leftist policy. And even if he was really such a patriot why didn't he institute new elections after overthrowing Allende? The answer is he was a thug, just because he was an anti-communist thug doesn't make him less of a thug.

International Affairs is just Political Science with an accent.

Hitler broke no laws either. Stalin didn't break laws. They had the laws changed so that they couldn't break them. Pinochet had to act before Allende could tighten his grip, as Castro had done before him, and make revolution impossible.

We execute people in the United States. The fact some people died under Pinochet does not condemn him in any way, period. Unless there is evidence he executed completely innocent people, there is no reason to think he merely was preserving the integrity of the country.

What freedom-loving, rational people do to communists is fight them. It doesn't matter if they are elected, if they are a rebel group, it makes no difference whatsoever. Communism is wrong, and just because they brainwash a plurality of a population changes nothing. The people who know better are obligated to preserve the future of their nation.

But I suppose you might just sympathize with communists, in which case we simply have an ideological disagreement.

It is nowhere near the level you claim and he comes very close to the right question to ask of Any decision, leader, or action:
"Was it the best option at the time given the knowledge and circumstances and cultures involved?"

That is what must be asked about Pinochet. And a moderaately serious reading of history will show you that it Pinochet Was the best option and the steps he took Were the best options available. He saw a need, acted on that need, and got out of the way.
As to why he didn't institute new elections immediately, if Castro were overthrown tomorrow and elections held the day after, would a responsible government be elected or just a Castro redux?
Pinochet knew that the country had to be changed before elections would have a chance at helping his nation.

Was he a brutal dictator who slaughtered thousands (and perhaps tens of thousands)? Yes. Was he a terrible, horrible man? Yes. Was there someone out there who would have been better for Chile? No.
Pinochet was most certainly no Washington. He was more of a Cromwell (who stepped down instead of dieing in power).

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

Condemn anyone you like, but if a dictator makes a deal to step down voluntarily in exchange for immunity, that needs to be respected. Otherwise, why would any of them step down? They would fight to the last man under their command.

It grates, it really does, that this means some people who desperately deserve to be punished will get away with it, but if you have to take their palaces room by room and corridor by corridor, ordinary soldiers and civilians will bear the cost of this moral luxury.

This arises frequently in parts of eastern Europe, especially the Baltics. These states are still pursuing Nazi war criminals while letting Communists go free. This is emotionally hard to do, when the Nazis ruled these countries for three years more than six decades ago and the Communists were in power until 1990. By definition all the Nazis currently alive were pretty junior ones - not so for the Communists.

But, the Communists went voluntarily, and that means we have to give them a pass. I hate this, but believe it is the least worst option.

As late as March 2003, Bush offered Saddam a deal, that if he and his sons left Iraq the invasion was off. If Saddam had holed up in Syria, that would have been galling. But he would be out of power without the need for a war.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

seems to be that by condemning (indicting) Pinochet, we're discouraging the next crop of Cincinnati from stepping forth to save their country from a more hideous dictator, by whatever means necessary.

That's not the thrust of my argument; that's a misreading of the thrust of one of my comments. What I'm actually saying is that by indicting Pinochet, by prosecuting him and threatening him with all sorts of nasty sanctions, we are discouraging dictators from peacefully stepping down. That is a very bad thing. We want these folks to either do the good or bad things they are going to do, decide they've done everything they needed to do, then quietly step down and let their citizenry move on with their lives.

Consider Pinochet, because he's a pretty good example. He stepped down in response to a plebiscite, allowed his successor to take power peacefully, and made himself immune to prosecution, with a tidy little salary to boot. Morally perfect? Heck no. But he allowed the plebiscite. He responded to the plebiscite with something other than bullets and tear gas. He stepped down and allowed a rule of law succession to take place. Savor that for a moment: Someone who held absolute power in his country willingly gave it up, without the threat of violence before him. Holy criminy. Count everyone in the twentieth century who did the same thing. Tell me how many fingers are left on the first hand counting.

Whether you think him a savior or a tyrant, he left. He allowed Chile to go its own way without him. That is behavior we should reward. We want dictators to stop being dictators at some point, as dictators used to, 2150 years ago.

So when the Spaniards, the Chileans, and I lose track of who else indicted him, placed him under house arrest -- in his declining years! -- and basically told him that all of the protections he put in place for himself were null and void, they weren't merely stalking a frail old man; they were sending a message to the dictators and soon-to-be dictators of the world: Never, ever relinquish power until and unless it's pried from your cold, dead fingers.

To Hell with them, and I mean that. Those self-righteous prigs can rot, because they just made millions of lives worse for years and decades on end so they could feel better about themselves.

And while we're at it, to Hell with Spain.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Fascinating and convincing point.
--
Run like Reagan!

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

Definitely correct. He convinced me utterly. Before I was pretty ambivalent about the Pinochet/Spain thing. The only argument against going after him I'd seen was his age, and I never bought that.

But incentives for dictators to stop being dictators? All for it.
--
Run like Reagan!